Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 97

I just looked in google for a random mp3 bit rate blind test, took it and came here to look for a post just like this! 

I took the mp3ornot 128 vs 320 kbps test. I used just my laptop's soundcard and sennheiser HD 598. It was really easy to tell both apart and got a consistent correct score. I had a little handicap; my left ear can register up to 22 Khz (according to the horrible, excruciating, and painfully boring 40-min sound test with the audiologist my workplace forces us to take) so in two of those songs there was a certain pitch at the end of high notes that wasn't present in the more compressed file. Bass impact and general "noise" shows off which one is the lower quality too. There are some clear artifacts at the end of some notes that give away the lower quality compression, too.

But the most interesting thing I found about this sound test is the fact that it was far easier to determine which was the lower quality file not by asking myself which sounds better, but which sounds worse, which isn't the point of having the pleasure of listening to music, is it? AAC and Vorbis at 128 kbps sound pretty good with far less artifacts and should do a good job of reducing the size of not so musically demanding (to call it something) files.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkyle 

I just looked in google for a random mp3 bit rate blind test, took it and came here to look for a post just like this! 

 

I took the mp3ornot 128 vs 320 kbps test. I used just my laptop's soundcard and sennheiser HD 598. It was really easy to tell both apart and got a consistent correct score. I had a little handicap; my left ear can register up to 22 Khz (according to the horrible, excruciating, and painfully boring 40-min sound test with the audiologist my workplace forces us to take) so in two of those songs there was a certain pitch at the end of high notes that wasn't present in the more compressed file. Bass impact and general "noise" shows off which one is the lower quality too. There are some clear artifacts at the end of some notes that give away the lower quality compression, too.

 

But the most interesting thing I found about this sound test is the fact that it was far easier to determine which was the lower quality file not by asking myself which sounds better, but which sounds worse. 

128 kbps really gives itself up with the poor high pitches. But I always thougtht that above 320 kbps, human ear cannot tell the difference. I'll put it to the test one day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Walrus 

128 kbps really gives itself up with the poor high pitches. But I always thougtht that above 320 kbps, human ear cannot tell the difference. I'll put it to the test one day.

Haven't tried it, but I'm pretty sure the only way to tell the difference is because of the artifacts (like pre-echo) the mp3 file may have. 

Extremely interesting and eye opening thread. I can't be bothered doing a search but- is there any benefit in lstening to HD (>16 bit, 44khz) files vs "normal definition" (16,44) files)? Also same question in regard to bi-amping speakers vs single amping speakers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfac73 

Extremely interesting and eye opening thread. I can't be bothered doing a search but- is there any benefit in lstening to HD (>16 bit, 44khz) files vs "normal definition" (16,44) files)? Also same question in regard to bi-amping speakers vs single amping speakers.

I think that (bi- or single amping speaks) has so much to do with your set up. If you really have that great of a system that it exceeds a passive crossover, sure, if not, it's probably deleterious. At least I know that the engineering of my passive crossovered speakers was engineered thusly, and can work with my simple hifi system. I've thought about switching to bi-amped, but it just seemed like so much added headache. Aynway, here's an interesting article: http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/biamping.html

That isn't to negate the benefits in a very truly professional set up. If the sound engineer is taking into account the size and shape of the room, and designing amps and speakers to tune each spectrum, it makes sense to me. To the average user, it seems like more stuff to mess up. But, I'm sure others will strongly disagree with me. Regarding the audio file there was a site I found once where you could challenge yourself. I failed. Here's the site: http://mp3ornot.com/

I used to rip my stuff in 128, and now use 320. My 320k files sound much better, but in retrospect, I think that has more to do with improvements in mp3 algorithms than it does file size.

I also remember reading somewhere that users would not be able to hear the difference between 320 kb/s lossy vs lossless audio. Now the difference between low bitrate vs 320 is debatable. I can also gather from elswhere in this thread that the difference between HD audio and normal def audio is also debatable. So can we conclude from this that there is no difference between low bit mp3 and HD audio?

Has anyone done any testing on the differences in the sound quality between  headphones ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfac73 

I also remember reading somewhere that users would not be able to hear the difference between 320 kb/s lossy vs lossless audio. Now the difference between low bitrate vs 320 is debatable. I can also gather from elswhere in this thread that the difference between HD audio and normal def audio is also debatable. So can we conclude from this that there is no difference between low bit mp3 and HD audio?

A lot of people can't hear the differences between 320 and lossless, however a lot of people do claim to hear a difference between 128 and lossless. I personal do feel that I hear a difference but in my case a difference DAC is involved.



Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfac73 

Has anyone done any testing on the differences in the sound quality between  headphones ?

It has been tested many times

http://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-data-sheet-downloads

If you know what the various measurements sound like, you can figure out what the headphone sounds like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scootsit 

I think that (bi- or single amping speaks) has so much to do with your set up. If you really have that great of a system that it exceeds a passive crossover, sure, if not, it's probably deleterious.

In all cases, the two crossovers are doing the same thing. The only difference is with overall load on the amp. Put simply: an amp that can deal with your bass can also deal with your mid/treble; and put more simply: an amp that can deal with both is cheaper than two amps which can deal with one.

The only place I've found any use for multi-amping within a single speaker (and I do have a setup like this) is when using active crossovers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot 

If you know what the various measurements sound like, you can figure out what the headphone sounds like.

To me, it perhaps sounds easier than it is. Wouldn't you also have to take into account whether it is open or closed, impedance, type of drivers and cup material (and probably other things I haven't thought of)? (I'm probably being Captain Obvious, so forgive me). 

Measurements are a good benchmark, but they obviously can't tell the entire story.